INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. KEVAL CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated January 13, 2012 (since reported in ITO v. Keval Construction, 2013 354 ITR 13 The following questions have been presented for our consideration:

(2.) The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shakti Developers came up for consideration before this court in the case of CIT v. Radhe Developers, 2012 341 ITR 403 . We upheld the Tribunal's order making the following observations (page 423):

(3.) During the course of the assessment, the Assessing Officer also disallowed the expenditure of a sum of Rs. 10,93,134 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source on payment of transportation charges. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance upon which the assessee approached, the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee took two stands. He firstly, contended that this was the first year of the applicability of the provisions and, therefore, out of ignorance, the deduction was not made. He, secondly, contended that in any case such disallowance should qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. The Tribunal allowed his appeal accepting the alternative contention and directed, the Assessing Officer to grant deduction accordingly. This conclusion of the Tribunal has given rise to questions (IIa) and (IIb) noted above. Ideally since this question had arisen out of the assessee's appeal, as contrasting the first question which had arisen out of the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's order, the Revenue should have presented two separate appeals before us. We are, however, not compelling for two separate appeals.